Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[riley2112]

In a study it was shown that a surprising amount of atheists send their children to church. The reason being because they want to expose their children to other views. . Many atheists/agnostics have gone into depression because they can't believe in God.

I would love to see that study, and any evidence supporting the statement about atheists having depression because they can't believe in a God. I would bet it was written by a Christian. Just guessing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How about I phrase it this way, are Agnostics more willing to consider the possibility that God exists?

Depends whether a particular agnostic is a "strong" or a "weak" atheist. Agnostics who are "weak" atheists are generally more willing to consider the possibility that God exists than "strong" atheists, although much of this comes down to how one is defining god, and what one means by "willing to consider." At the end of the day, any atheist who reaches their conclusion of atheism via a purely rational approach, will also be agnostic, and will be willing to consider any and all evidence for the existence of anything.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Depends whether a particular agnostic is a "strong" or a "weak" atheist. Agnostics who are "weak" atheists are generally more willing to consider the possibility that God exists than "strong" atheists, although much of this comes down to how one is defining god, and what one means by "willing to consider." At the end of the day, any atheist who reaches their conclusion of atheism via a purely rational approach, will also be agnostic, and will be willing to consider any and all evidence for the existence of anything.

So what is the difference between Agnostics and Atheists if you can be both?

What is the reason for the two beliefs?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A much more fair question would be, how many close minded people have you met admitted to being close minded?

'Closed-minded' is a word of insult, so why expect people to admit to it? It's like 'greedy.' Does anyone admit to being greedy? Not really. They might say they are careful with their pennies, while denying that they are greedy.

Same with 'closed-minded.' Words carry emotional baggage.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So what is the difference between Agnostics and Atheists if you can be both?

What is the reason for the two beliefs?

Because, as has been pointed out to you many times already, they describe different things. Agnosticism isn't primarily defined by non-belief in god, atheism is. Agnosticism deals with knowledge of god. First, do you understand that knowledge and belief are not the same thing?

 

[Tristesse]

So what is the difference between Agnostics and Atheists if you can be both?

What is the reason for the two beliefs?

Are you kidding me? Do you have me on ignore? Theism and atheism address beliefs, gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge. Example: I don't BELIEVE a god exists (atheism), but I don't KNOW whether or not a god exists either(agnosticism). They aren't mutually exclusive because they answer different questions. Atheism and theism answer what it is you believe, while gnosticism and agnosticism answer what you know or claim to know. Make sense?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what is the difference between Agnostics and Atheists if you can be both?

What's the difference between a Christian and a vegetarian if you can be both?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So what is the difference between Agnostics and Atheists if you can be both?

What is the reason for the two beliefs?

They aren't two beliefs. The labels were created by people who had a need to label people. That's all. It's not like atheists and agnostics really exist out in the world in the same way as 'that rock lying under that table.'

You can't walk into a room and see an atheist, an agnostic and a theist sitting there. You can only question them closely about their beliefs and then decide how you will label each of them. And the atheist might suddenly change into an agnostic (in your opinion or his opinion) by answering your 15th question differently than you expected.

And you might conclude that Guy X is an atheist while he swears that he's an agnostic. What then?

Really, to speak of atheists and agnostics as actually existing -- that seems pretty strange to me.

 

[outhouse]

What is the reason for the two beliefs?

Atheist, have a lack of belief, agnostics dont know what to believe

We are all born with that lack of belief in a deity



a deity is something we only believe in because our parents teach us what they want us to learn by attending social gatherings with like minded beings.


You have only percieved natural events and the weakness of the human mind as a deity as it is a natural responce to have a mythical parent figure who will take care of you.

 

[work in progress]

Because, as has been pointed out to you many times already, they describe different things. Agnosticism isn't primarily defined by non-belief in god, atheism is. Agnosticism deals with knowledge of god. First, do you understand that knowledge and belief are not the same thing?

And I still don't accept this double definition business. I would say that on this topic: existence or non-existence of God, there is no such distinction between knowledge and belief. How would such knowledge be demonstrated? Everyone who claims to know, is ultimately just describing how much they believe. So, it doesn't make much sense to say:"I don't believe in God, but I don't know whether or not God exists. Anyone who strongly disbelieves doesn't need to wear the agnostic label in some attempt to appear more open-minded.

The only people I think should use the agnostic label are ones who are unsure whether or not they believe in God. When it's used by someone like Richard Dawkins...who calls himself a 6 on his self-created 7 level non-belief scale, it's ridiculous for someone like this to call themselves an atheist/agnostic. I think real agnostics, like former Anglican priest - Mark Vernon, have a strong case in claiming that Dawkins is misappropriating the term to label agnostics as atheists.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Are you kidding me? Do you have me on ignore?

The staff cannot put a member on ignore no more than you can ignore a staff member. :no:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only people I think should use the agnostic label are ones who are unsure whether or not they believe in God. When it's used by someone like Richard Dawkins...who calls himself a 6 on his self-created 7 level non-belief scale, it's ridiculous for someone like this to call themselves an atheist/agnostic.

Level 6 on his scale is "practical atheist".

I think real agnostics, like former Anglican priest - Mark Vernon, have a strong case in claiming that Dawkins is misappropriating the term to label agnostics as atheists.

I don't think anyone has suggested that all agnostics are atheists, but I think it's reasonable to say that many are.

IMO, their resistance to the term has more to do with the baggage our culture attaches to the word "atheist" than the strict definition of the term not applying to them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

IMO, their resistance to the term has more to do with the baggage our culture attaches to the word "atheist" than the strict definition of the term not applying to them.

I agree, although I deny that any specific 'strict definition' exists for agnosticism. Many, many such definitions exist, of course, but not a single one.

One should probably read Huxley if one wants to examine the word more closely, since he invented it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, although I deny that any specific 'strict definition' exists for agnosticism. Many, many such definitions exist, of course, but not a single one.

One should probably read Huxley if one wants to examine the word more closely, since he invented it.

I've read how Huxley describes agnosticism. That's part of why I reject the idea that it's some sort of default position.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And I still don't accept this double definition business.

Whether you accept it or not, it describes widely used, valid definitions for these words. I agree that agnosticism, as currently most widely used, is a rather empty word, as, if people are being honest, we would all be agnostic then. But, who ever said language is a perfect system? People invent useless and extraneous words all the time.

 

[Tristesse]

The staff cannot put a member on ignore no more than you can ignore a staff member. :no:

Then please explain why you're asking a question that has been explained to you 1,000 times.

 

[work in progress]

Level 6 on his scale is "practical atheist".

Did you notice that Dawkins's own scale places "knowing" at the top and bottom? His scale already demonstrates that separating knowledge and belief is playing with semantics. The pre-20th century understanding of the mind would hold that it was possible to attain absolute knowledge of a subject...any subject, but the gathering of evidence from neuroscience and cognitive psychology shows otherwise. There is nothing external or internal (even our understanding of our own mind is a construction of brain function) that can completely rule out error. We have many beliefs that we can have confidence in because they are verifiable and repeatable from other lines of evidence, and agreed to by others (that may be our most important confirmation), but there is no such thing as knowing in an absolute sense....or certainly not one that can be separated or distinguished from belief.

So, getting back to Dawkins's scale: #1 is the absolute believer as typified by Carl Jung, who stated something about 'not believing in God, but knowing that God exists.' While #7 is "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one." #6 is "very low probability, but short of zero." Now, in all honesty, which category does someone like Richard Dawkins - who has sidelined his work in biology to try to create and lead an atheist movement really belong in? I would say that if he is really honest with his readers (and to himself for that matter) it would be #7, because he writes and speaks with the conviction that gods and all supernatural beliefs are delusional and harmful, with the same conviction that Carl Jung believed that God exists.

I don't think anyone has suggested that all agnostics are atheists, but I think it's reasonable to say that many are.

IMO, their resistance to the term has more to do with the baggage our culture attaches to the word "atheist" than the strict definition of the term not applying to them.

Well, how about someone like Soren Kierkegaard? He would be classified as a Christian agnostic on such a dual scale, since he strongly believed in God, but also strongly believed that faith was a leap beyond reason into the absurd.
But someone who writes about agnosticism today, like the previously mentioned Mark Vernon, would have remained an Anglican priest if his faith hadn't been replaced by doubt and uncertainty. A couple of years ago, he wrote a piece for the Guardian UK describing three commonly used, general categories of agnostics. The common thread is that they have a high degree of uncertainty at their base, so the Carl Jungs and Richard Dawkins would not fit in any of the agnostic categories.

 

[work in progress]

Whether you accept it or not, it describes widely used, valid definitions for these words. I agree that agnosticism, as currently most widely used, is a rather empty word, as, if people are being honest, we would all be agnostic then. But, who ever said language is a perfect system? People invent useless and extraneous words all the time.

The problem I see is not a gradual cultural shifting of the definitions, but deliberate strategies to commandeer them. I was glancing over some new stories about the Tar Sands developments in Alberta, and discovered that the oil industry strategy of changing the name to the slightly cleaner sounding "oil sands" permeates all levels of discussion on the subject. What the real agnostics grumble about is a similar pattern at work, where their label has been co-opted deliberately by the RDF to remove any separate agnostic identity in the discussions on belief. Now, the agnostics have to explain why they are not atheists, and redefine the term "agnostic" every time they discuss it with others.

 

[Willamena]

So what is the difference between Agnostics and Atheists if you can be both?

What is the reason for the two beliefs?

The first concept doesn't describe belief, that's the difference.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The problem I see is not a gradual cultural shifting of the definitions, but deliberate strategies to commandeer them. I was glancing over some new stories about the Tar Sands developments in Alberta, and discovered that the oil industry strategy of changing the name to the slightly cleaner sounding "oil sands" permeates all levels of discussion on the subject. What the real agnostics grumble about is a similar pattern at work, where their label has been co-opted deliberately by the RDF to remove any separate agnostic identity in the discussions on belief. Now, the agnostics have to explain why they are not atheists, and redefine the term "agnostic" every time they discuss it with others.

I don't know what the RDF is, nor what "real" agnostics are. I enjoy your rhetoric though.